Jump to content


Photo

Meanwhile In The Baltic Republics And Poland...


  • Please log in to reply
2700 replies to this topic

#81 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,444 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 1424 PM

Looks very similar to TOW launcher. Those sneaky juice. ;)

Can a MAPATS launcher shoot TOW missiles? Maybe with a different guidance unit?

Edited by Panzermann, 28 June 2016 - 1424 PM.

  • 0

#82 carrierlost

carrierlost

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 976 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 1455 PM

As MAPATS is laser guided  I'd say no.

I can't rule out that some parts might be interchangeable though.


  • 0

#83 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,928 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 1525 PM

At c. $100k a pop, you don't use that many Javelins or Spikes etc. training. You want to keep them for the Big Show.


  • 0

#84 Gregory

Gregory

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 1530 PM

...and anything worth saying once, is worth saying four times. At least the site engine thought so. :)
  • 0

#85 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,928 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 1550 PM

 The most likely route of advancement for Russians is the main Narva-Tallinn highway,  over quite flat land and farmland opening up on sides of the road. Forest covers around 50% of Estonia.

 

 

My only experience is wargaming, but it looks to me that that highway would be a defenders' dream with loads of opportunities for keyhole ambushes, demolitions, minefields etc. Small groups of defenders armed with Carl Gustavs and sniper and anti materiel rifles could make any Russian advance progressively less supportable the further it got. Mobilising a force big enough to hold down Estonia, let alone the other Baltic Republics would be a major undertaking for the Russians. 


  • 0

#86 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,928 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 1607 PM

...and anything worth saying once, is worth saying four times. At least the site engine thought so. :)

 

I'm glad I still possess a Delete button :)


  • 0

#87 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,122 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 2037 PM

A professional NATO OPFOR would probably be a good thing. Everything you need is available from Bulgaria and they could travel around NATO pretending to be REDLAND or DERKALAND as needed.
Lots of interesting options like AFVBIEDs etc.
  • 0

#88 mattblack

mattblack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,614 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 2341 PM

 

 The most likely route of advancement for Russians is the main Narva-Tallinn highway,  over quite flat land and farmland opening up on sides of the road. Forest covers around 50% of Estonia.

 

 

My only experience is wargaming, but it looks to me that that highway would be a defenders' dream with loads of opportunities for keyhole ambushes, demolitions, minefields etc. Small groups of defenders armed with Carl Gustavs and sniper and anti materiel rifles could make any Russian advance progressively less supportable the further it got. Mobilising a force big enough to hold down Estonia, let alone the other Baltic Republics would be a major undertaking for the Russians. 

 

 

 

The third rendition of the Tannenberg Line.

 

 If you happen to have read Tigers in the Mud where Carius speaks of the battles near Narva,the Rollbahn he repeatedly mentions is indeed the Narva-Tallinn highway.There really is a whole bunch of nothing between the 2 places,lots and lots of forest,loads of huge fields and closer to Tallinn some boggy bits.

I lie that there is nothing between them at all,there's a good Georgian place in Johvi. 


  • 0

#89 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,626 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 0245 AM

 

...and anything worth saying once, is worth saying four times. At least the site engine thought so. :)

 

I'm glad I still possess a Delete button :)

 

Just as long as its not a reset button. :D


  • 0

#90 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,626 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 0250 AM

 

 The most likely route of advancement for Russians is the main Narva-Tallinn highway,  over quite flat land and farmland opening up on sides of the road. Forest covers around 50% of Estonia.

 

 

My only experience is wargaming, but it looks to me that that highway would be a defenders' dream with loads of opportunities for keyhole ambushes, demolitions, minefields etc. Small groups of defenders armed with Carl Gustavs and sniper and anti materiel rifles could make any Russian advance progressively less supportable the further it got. Mobilising a force big enough to hold down Estonia, let alone the other Baltic Republics would be a major undertaking for the Russians. 

 

Wait until winter, then go round the side Billion Dollar Brain style. MTLB might just be light enough to make that work.

https://en.wikipedia...iki/Lake_Peipus

 

The central problem is that though that is a very strong axis of defence, Its only one axis. You can advance on Tallin over 3, and whilst one of them through Tartu is pretty hard to advance over, if you skit the Estonian/Latvian border, then travel up the West coast in a hail mary, there are only territorial units to defend there. So the Estonians could easily halt the Russians on the road, and find themselves in a pincer. They cant have the regular army in two places at once.


  • 0

#91 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,626 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 0256 AM

 

Maybe they dont have many left. I dont know what the US stocks of them post 2003 have been like.

 

Im not sure how relevant TOW is to the baltic states anyway. There cant be that many engagement zones were you are going to get 3000km+ kills.

 

Plenty of Javelins were shot on Saber Strike 16

 

I dont think I've seen TOW video from Saber Strike 16. From last year yes

 

 

Estonia doesn't use TOW. Closest thing we currently have to TOW is MAPATS:

file63966881_3a44bacf.jpg

 

3000m+ ranges do exist.  Mostly in northern Estonia. The most likely route of advancement for Russians is the main Narva-Tallinn highway,  over quite flat land and farmland opening up on sides of the road. Forest covers around 50% of Estonia.

 

 

Has anyone actually done a study on the ranges between villages/defensive positions over Estonia or the other Baltic states?

 

Im reading that Lithuania just after the war was very open, and made it a pig for the Forest Brothers to hide, whereas forest density over Latvia and Estonia were more. Of course, there has been 70 years worth of development since then. But even in the USAEUR sector of West Germany in the cold war, average engagement ranges were though to be on average 1500-2500 if memory serves. Id be deeply surprised if its better than that.


  • 0

#92 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,928 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 0358 AM

Google maps and streetview are your friends. These views are very representative of the route which is 194 km long.

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

 

Even if the Russians were to capture Tallinn, it isn't particularly strategic (it's not like we're going to make an opposed landing in St. Pertersburg) and doesn't get them very far with respect to Estonia's land mass or the other Republics. They would then have to hoid it, resupplying via a 194km MSR that will be heavily damaged and interdicted and choked with refugee transport, burned out trucks etc. Ten sniper teams with AMRs and quad bikes could close it down for weeks. One F-15E could put 28 deep craters in it in one sortie. Dropping these three bridges alone would prevent a dash to Tallinn.

 

https://www.google.c...272!4d25.013607


  • 0

#93 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,626 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 0518 AM

Google maps and streetview are your friends. These views are very representative of the route which is 194 km long.

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

https://www.google.c....013607!6m1!1e1

 

 

Even if the Russians were to capture Tallinn, it isn't particularly strategic (it's not like we're going to make an opposed landing in St. Pertersburg) and doesn't get them very far with respect to Estonia's land mass or the other Republics. They would then have to hoid it, resupplying via a 194km MSR that will be heavily damaged and interdicted and choked with refugee transport, burned out trucks etc. Ten sniper teams with AMRs and quad bikes could close it down for weeks. One F-15E could put 28 deep craters in it in one sortie. Dropping these three bridges alone would prevent a dash to Tallinn.

 

https://www.google.c...272!4d25.013607

Indeed. If it could survive long enough to do so with the S300 and S400 batteries that surround St Petersburg. If we could just convince them to buy stormshadow and long range Brimstone it would all be so much easier.

 

Im not one of the 'The Russians are 30 foot high!' or the 'Russians are meh' crowd. Someone said during the cold war Russia is never as strong as it appears, or as weak. Im sure the same is true here. I can quite believe the Estonians can hold the Russians on that axis. But they have an entire Airmobile Division at Pskov with a nearby Helicopter Air Cavalry Brigade. They are deploying most of their new Hokums and Havocs here. The Russians would not invade Estonia on just one axis, simply because that is the easy way for the Estonians to defend.

 

One other point, the Russians have attached to 6th Army an artillery brigade, 288 artillery IIRC. Which has now only a 220mm MRL btn, but also a battalion of 2s19s. Thats on top of the 2 battalions of 152mm guns they have attached to 138 MRB, and on top of that they have an iskander brigade equipped with thermobaric munitions. So its not as if its all on the Estonians side even at Narva. As seen by the Georgians or the Ukrainians, when you start massing troops to try and retake terrain, you turn into one big fat target. And Russian artillery clearly got very good at using short range UAVs for targeting.

 

That said, the Russians are probably stoppable on that axis. But look at the Estonian/Latvian border.There are not much in the way of hills as best I can tell, there is nowhere near as much trees in the east of the country. The Riga-Tallin road looks to be pretty good. And they have only 2, maybe 3 territorial defence brigades. I dont underate these Estonian territorial defence units, but are they really going to hold off a 6 battalion division of Russian paratroopers backed up by a battalion of T72B3s and maybe an equal measure of 2s25s? For a while, im sure they will. But its not going to be forever, and even with VHRJTF on scene very quickly, in not sure its going to make much difference, simply because as you point out that, other than a single battalion in Lithuania of Abrams and Bradleys, the most of the armour is Strykers, outgunned even by BMD2.

 

Im more more optimistic over the survival of Latvia and Lthuania, simply because they have more defence in depth and they can make that count. That is compounded in the Latvian case by only having a brigade of 4 regular units with the rest territorial defence, and the Lithuanians have to defend on 2, maybe even 3 threat axis. If the Belarussians come into a war, then you have the problem that Vilnius is right next to the Belarus Border, and is about as defensible as when Pilsudski took it nearly 100 years ago.

 

I guess what im saying is, at the moment, Estonia is a real problem to defend. The other 2 im more optimistic about, particularly with forward basing. But if the Russians forward deploy elements of 1st Guards Tank Army as they are making noises about so doing, then this is not going to be an easy threat to defeat. I mean a tank and mech division and all supporting arms was a tough nut to crack even in the 1980s. As you rightly point out, we threw away many of the nice toys we developed a decade ago that would make it all so easy.

 

Im not supporting the doom and gloom of Rand, but lets be fair here, this is the Russian army. They have got a bit good of late, lets give them some credit for that.

 

Dont get me started on the Spetsnaz Brigades. They do seem to have light artillery attached, and seem not very far removed from the US Rangers or our Commandos. I wouldnt underrate their utility on poor terrain either. Certainly they are no worse off than our VHRJTF, except they have at least 2 Brigades, possibly 3 within easy access of the Baltic states. How many brigades are we going to put in within 5 days, one isnt it?

 

 

Its not an appalling balance by any means. But it is arguably getting worse.


  • 0

#94 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,754 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 1506 PM

At c. $100k a pop, you don't use that many Javelins or Spikes etc. training. You want to keep them for the Big Show.

Such missiles don't have infinite shelf life.
Javelin is about 20 years old design, its users can be expected to ramp up training shots because those missiles have only a few years of life left anyway.

15-20 years shelf life (with high share of technical failures past this) are common figures for such missiles.
  • 0

#95 carrierlost

carrierlost

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 976 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 1612 PM

Wait until winter, then go round the side Billion Dollar Brain style. MTLB might just be light enough to make that work.
https://en.wikipedia...iki/Lake_Peipus

Interesting option a la 1242 Ice Battle. But also quite risky. 
Winter day has around 6 hours of sunlight, and 18 hours of darkness (this is similar latitude as southern Alaska). During summer summer its reverse - today the sunrise will be at 0408 and sunset at 2241. Everything you do in darkness means you will have to rely heavily on thermals. You have to bring much more fuel as the consumption goes way up. Also once the fighting erupts you will have to battle also with snow to keep supply roads open. Venturing ad-hoc over fields even if you have tracked vehicle unless you know every ditch and rock. Snow hides everything. If power is cut for more than a couple of days the water piping will freeze over - no easy water supply. 
 
 

The central problem is that though that is a very strong axis of defence, Its only one axis. You can advance on Tallin over 3, and whilst one of them through Tartu is pretty hard to advance over, if you skit the Estonian/Latvian border, then travel up the West coast in a hail mary, there are only territorial units to defend there. So the Estonians could easily halt the Russians on the road, and find themselves in a pincer. They cant have the regular army in two places at once.

I assume you mean 3rd path is towards Valga and then westwards via Valga-Uulu towards the coast ? or via Valga - Valmiera - Ainazi in Latvia? As a way to cut off Latvia and Estonia - yes possible, but as a advancement supply road towards north a bit risky - very backwater region with few alternate roads if some bridge is blown. This is because area between Pärnu and Viljandi is a bog/swap/lowland that frequently floods.
 


 

That said, the Russians are probably stoppable on that axis. But look at the Estonian/Latvian border.There are not much in the way of hills as best I can tell, there is nowhere near as much trees in the east of the country. The Riga-Tallin road looks to be pretty good. And they have only 2, maybe 3 territorial defence brigades. I dont underate these Estonian territorial defence units, but are they really going to hold off a 6 battalion division of Russian paratroopers backed up by a battalion of T72B3s and maybe an equal measure of 2s25s? For a while, im sure they will. But its not going to be forever, and even with VHRJTF on scene very quickly, in not sure its going to make much difference, simply because as you point out that, other than a single battalion in Lithuania of Abrams and Bradleys, the most of the armour is Strykers, outgunned even by BMD2.

 
Terrain in south is very hilly east of Valga and gets gradually flatter  to the west. Typical landscape:
 

 
Forest coverage is not much different to north: 
maakondade_metsasus_graaf.png
 
 
With regards to Defence League (volunteer) units.You are right they are currently light on armament. Main anti-armor is still PVPJ-1110 (100+) mounted or towed
 
11059558_853230764742439_504513441417057
 
or towed:
 
11174905_853235248075324_326456035737662
 
and of course Carl-Gustav. Javelins are planned to be distributed to them as well, but have not been yet AFAIK.  Indirect fire support is provided mortars.
Transport is truck based mostly, only few tens of BTRs. Everything heavier is for the army units. 

Im more more optimistic over the survival of Latvia and Lthuania, simply because they have more defence in depth and they can make that count. That is compounded in the Latvian case by only having a brigade of 4 regular units with the rest territorial defence, and the Lithuanians have to defend on 2, maybe even 3 threat axis. If the Belarussians come into a war, then you have the problem that Vilnius is right next to the Belarus Border, and is about as defensible as when Pilsudski took it nearly 100 years ago.

I guess what im saying is, at the moment, Estonia is a real problem to defend. The other 2 im more optimistic about, particularly with forward basing

I'd recommend looking at the number of troops/equipment can be mobilised in each in case of war. Lets say I have different thoughts.
Much depends on Belarus. If they don't get involved Lithuania of course has a good position as the main attack will have to go through Latvia and Poland is close, if Belarus gets involved....

Latvia is in a bad position either way. If you look at numbers of troops / equipment they have, they have a problem, which of course means we have a problem as well.
Geographically Riga is the same distance from Russia as Tallinn.
  • 0

#96 Dark_Falcon

Dark_Falcon

    The Stryker's Friend

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 1822 PM

 

Russia's Baltic Fleet Command Staff Sacked For 'Serious Shortcomings'

 

 

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu sacked the commander of Russia's Baltic Fleet, along with a number of senior officers, for “serious shortcomings” pertaining to their combat training, the TASS news agency reported Wednesday, citing a Defense Ministry statement.

 

The fleet's command staff was also accused of falsifying reports on the state of the Baltic Fleet, the report said.

 

The Baltic Fleet is the smallest and most neglected of Russia's four major naval groupings — the larger being the Northern, Pacific and Black Sea Fleets. The Defense Ministry said it launched an inquiry into Admiral Viktor Kravchuk, his chief of staff Sergei Popov, and several other senior officials serving in the command structure of the Baltic Fleet.

 

The Baltic Fleet's command staff showed “serious shortcomings in the organization of combat training, daily activities of their forces, failure to take all necessary measures to improve personnel accommodations, inattention to their subordinates, as well as distorted reports on the real state of affairs,” TASS reported.

 

The ministry said the officers will be removed from their posts and discharged from military service, and a second inspection of the fleet will be carried out by the end of the year.

 

Well, admitting you've got a problem is the first step to fixing it.  And doing so publicly, also warns other screw-ups to shape up or ship out.


  • 0

#97 Gregory

Gregory

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 0156 AM

I'd recommend looking at the number of troops/equipment can be mobilised in each in case of war. Lets say I have different thoughts.
Much depends on Belarus. If they don't get involved Lithuania of course has a good position as the main attack will have to go through Latvia and Poland is close, if Belarus gets involved....

Latvia is in a bad position either way. If you look at numbers of troops / equipment they have, they have a problem, which of course means we have a problem as well.
Geographically Riga is the same distance from Russia as Tallinn.


Agreed. Latvia has a very low troop/frontage ratio even when factoring in Zemessargi. When you add to that low degree of tactical mobility for territorials (they are indifferently motorized),mediocre levels of training and lack of training in anti-armor tactics...well.
  • 0

#98 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,626 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 0240 AM

 

Wait until winter, then go round the side Billion Dollar Brain style. MTLB might just be light enough to make that work.
https://en.wikipedia...iki/Lake_Peipus

Interesting option a la 1242 Ice Battle. But also quite risky. 
Winter day has around 6 hours of sunlight, and 18 hours of darkness (this is similar latitude as southern Alaska). During summer summer its reverse - today the sunrise will be at 0408 and sunset at 2241. Everything you do in darkness means you will have to rely heavily on thermals. You have to bring much more fuel as the consumption goes way up. Also once the fighting erupts you will have to battle also with snow to keep supply roads open. Venturing ad-hoc over fields even if you have tracked vehicle unless you know every ditch and rock. Snow hides everything. If power is cut for more than a couple of days the water piping will freeze over - no easy water supply. 
 
 

The central problem is that though that is a very strong axis of defence, Its only one axis. You can advance on Tallin over 3, and whilst one of them through Tartu is pretty hard to advance over, if you skit the Estonian/Latvian border, then travel up the West coast in a hail mary, there are only territorial units to defend there. So the Estonians could easily halt the Russians on the road, and find themselves in a pincer. They cant have the regular army in two places at once.

I assume you mean 3rd path is towards Valga and then westwards via Valga-Uulu towards the coast ? or via Valga - Valmiera - Ainazi in Latvia? As a way to cut off Latvia and Estonia - yes possible, but as a advancement supply road towards north a bit risky - very backwater region with few alternate roads if some bridge is blown. This is because area between Pärnu and Viljandi is a bog/swap/lowland that frequently floods.
 


 

That said, the Russians are probably stoppable on that axis. But look at the Estonian/Latvian border.There are not much in the way of hills as best I can tell, there is nowhere near as much trees in the east of the country. The Riga-Tallin road looks to be pretty good. And they have only 2, maybe 3 territorial defence brigades. I dont underate these Estonian territorial defence units, but are they really going to hold off a 6 battalion division of Russian paratroopers backed up by a battalion of T72B3s and maybe an equal measure of 2s25s? For a while, im sure they will. But its not going to be forever, and even with VHRJTF on scene very quickly, in not sure its going to make much difference, simply because as you point out that, other than a single battalion in Lithuania of Abrams and Bradleys, the most of the armour is Strykers, outgunned even by BMD2.

 
Terrain in south is very hilly east of Valga and gets gradually flatter  to the west. Typical landscape:
 

 
Forest coverage is not much different to north: 
maakondade_metsasus_graaf.png
 
 
With regards to Defence League (volunteer) units.You are right they are currently light on armament. Main anti-armor is still PVPJ-1110 (100+) mounted or towed
 
11059558_853230764742439_504513441417057
 
or towed:
 
11174905_853235248075324_326456035737662
 
and of course Carl-Gustav. Javelins are planned to be distributed to them as well, but have not been yet AFAIK.  Indirect fire support is provided mortars.
Transport is truck based mostly, only few tens of BTRs. Everything heavier is for the army units. 

Im more more optimistic over the survival of Latvia and Lthuania, simply because they have more defence in depth and they can make that count. That is compounded in the Latvian case by only having a brigade of 4 regular units with the rest territorial defence, and the Lithuanians have to defend on 2, maybe even 3 threat axis. If the Belarussians come into a war, then you have the problem that Vilnius is right next to the Belarus Border, and is about as defensible as when Pilsudski took it nearly 100 years ago.

I guess what im saying is, at the moment, Estonia is a real problem to defend. The other 2 im more optimistic about, particularly with forward basing

I'd recommend looking at the number of troops/equipment can be mobilised in each in case of war. Lets say I have different thoughts.
Much depends on Belarus. If they don't get involved Lithuania of course has a good position as the main attack will have to go through Latvia and Poland is close, if Belarus gets involved....

Latvia is in a bad position either way. If you look at numbers of troops / equipment they have, they have a problem, which of course means we have a problem as well.
Geographically Riga is the same distance from Russia as Tallinn.

 

Great points Carrierlost, and thank you for going so easy on this armchair general. :)

 

Yes, I agree Latvia has a real problem. Your regular brigade has about 4 battalions including Artillery, along with some good APCs. Latvias has its artillery as part of the territorial forces (in an area that looks sure to be overrun quickly by insurgents if it came to it) and has only 3 battalions in its brigade, one of them a support battalion with the mortars and air defence units. It does have a special forces unit which I daresay is good, but its not going to do much against mechanised forces. Its only AFVs are 40 year old British Spartans and Scimitars. For the country it has to cover it has problems. OTOH, it does have a centrally located port which means bringing in supplies and reinforcements would be much easier than Estonia, where to bring in supplies you are essentially doing it right in the face of the Russian navy and short range airpower, including attack helicopters.

 

So Latvia is weak. But it does have a lot of room to trade for time, and it seems likely that it and Lithuania are far more likely to be reinforced than Estonia, unless fighting remains at a fairly low level and allows reinforcement at an early stage. Once a war begins I have a job seeing anyone flying into Estonia, and even sending landing ships up that way is chancing one's arm.

 

Thanks for the vids and all, food for though that.


  • 0

#99 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,497 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 0312 AM

http://www.atlantic-...p_p_col_count=3  

The Battle for Tallinngrad: New Ways to Fight an Old War
  • 0

#100 a77

a77

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 701 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 0317 AM

Dark_Falcon: I do not know whay the quoute button do not work, but I refere to your Batic fleet shortcomings.

 

Yes its good to sack incompetent personal, but lets take "failure to take all necessary measures to improve personnel accommodations" did the amiral (or who is in charge) get adequately funding to build new barracks or modernize exusting barracks and failed, or was he expected to conjure up new barracks widout adequately money, and it was better to blame the lokal amiral then to recognize that the goverment can not afford to build better barracks.  

 

I gess on the last one, becuse they do not say the amiral (or who is in charge) wasted goverment funding, or was involved in corruption.

 

If it is so is Russia not tyring to admitt the problem but to silence the core causal,


Edited by a77, 30 June 2016 - 0323 AM.

  • 0